Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 79

ORDER SUPERSEDING ORDER AT DOCKET 62 signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 2/20/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:11-cv-001749-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER SUPERCEDING ORDER
AT DOCKET 62

vs.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docker 62 the Court entered its Order Regarding Motion In Limine at Docket 48.
At Docket 70 Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order in limine, and at
Docket 71 timely objected to that order. At Docket 72 Defendant has also timely filed an
objection to the Court’s Order. The Court having considered the arguments and points
raised by the parties in their objections has determined that the Order heretofore entered
at Docket 62 should be amended.
Plaintiff’s Objections.
In his Motion for Reconsideration and his Objection Plaintiff raise two issues. First
that at trial he be permitted to wear clothing that covers his arms to prevent the jury from
seeing his gang tattoos. Second that the Court reverse its ruling with respect to the
admissibility of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609.
As to the first, the court will grant Plaintiff leave to wear otherwise suitable courtroom
attire that will cover and prevent exposure of his arms. As to the second, the Court declines
to rule on the admissibility of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 608 (character
ORDER SUPERCEDING ORDER AT DOCKET 62
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 1

evidence) and 609 (impeachment evidence) prior to the time it is proffered in accordance
with the terms of those rules. Therefore, the Court declines to rule on its admissibility at this
point in the proceeding.
Defendant’s Objection
Defendant objects to the preclusion of evidence of Plaintiff’s use of heroin on the
day preceding the evidence. At this juncture in the proceedings the Court cannot determine
with any reasonable degree of certainty the admissibility of that evidence. In particular, the
Court cannot determine whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by its
potential unfair prejudicial effect on the jury.1 Accordingly, the Court also declines to rule
on the admissibility of Plaintiff’s use of heroin at this time.
Accordingly, the Order entered at Docket 62 is hereby rescinded and the following
order entered in lieu thereof.
1.

Only those witnesses properly disclosed and identified by the parties, or

necessary rebuttal witnesses, will be permitted to testify, irrespective of whether identified
as a lay or expert witness;
2.

Except to the extent that it may be offered under Federal Rule of Evidence

608 or 609, evidence of Plaintiff’s prior criminal or wrongful conduct;
3.

1

Evidence of Plaintiff’s gang affiliation, if any, will be excluded;

See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404.

ORDER SUPERCEDING ORDER AT DOCKET 62
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 2

4.

Prior lawsuits and/or complaints filed against the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, its agents or employees, will be excluded;
5.

Evidence of State finances will excluded;

6.

Plaintiff will be permitted wear appropriate clothing that covers his arms to

prevent view of his tattoos by the jury;
7.

The admission of character evidence under Rule 608 and/or evidence

proffered for impeachment purpose under Rule 609 will be determined at the time that it
is sought to be introduced; and
8.

The admission of evidence that Plaintiff had used heroin the day before the

date of the incident will be determined at the time it is sought to be introduced.
9.

With respect to the shackling of Plaintiff at trial, it is the practice of this Court

that, where the Plaintiff is a prisoner:

(1)

Plaintiff be escorted into and out of the

courtroom outside the presence of the jury; (2) in the absence of evidence that additional
restraint is reasonably necessary, the sole restraint permitted in the presence of the jury
will be leg shackles applied in a manner that precludes view by the jury; and (3) in the
presence of the jury, the parties (or counsel) will address the Court, the jury, and question
witnesses from counsel table, not the podium (standing if doing so would not reveal the
shackling, otherwise while seated).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration at DOCKET 70 is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER SUPERCEDING ORDER AT DOCKET 62
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 3